Skip to main content

About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
not trade weapons or anything else for hostages. >> the iran-contra scandal nearly crippled ronald reagan's second term. marital infidelity and impeachment almost ended bill clinton's presidency. >> i earned capital in the campaign, political capital and now i intend to spend it. >> hubris slowed down george w. bush's second term followed by the war in iraq and 2008 financial crisis. with history as a guide president obama is looking to learn from his own mistakes. >> i hope and intend to be an even better president in the second term than i was in the first. >> john meacham is a pulitzer prize winning historian. he wrote about the prospects of president obama's second term. he's author of a new book "thomas jefferson, the art of power." good morning. first of all, why do presidents stumble so badly in second terms? >> absolutely, it's because, i think the president's clock now moves towards history. everybody else in washington's clock is moving towards the next election. and so his interests and their interests begin to divide as every day passes which is why it
is ronald reagan. the numbers are still being counted in the west coast so it will be bigger. obama has the bigger margin of victory than george bush did in 2004. and remember that george bush declared himself a mandate into how. >> stephanie: how long bigger do you think the poplar vote margin would have been if it weren't to hurricane sandy. obviously the popular vote would have been bigger. >> caller: no, it's clear. i wouldn't be surprised if we get to a four-point margin. this is how good this is. we are close if it expands to half a percent, which is doable with the ballots in california arizona and washington and oregon. president obamamitt romney will have around 47% of the vote. >> stephanie: how ironic tee hee. congratulations on all your rightness and smartness. >> caller: thanks very much. >> what universe is dick morris not part of the media. he's complaining about the media and his mug is on fox news every five minutes. >> stephanie: myth busters is taking you to task for saying it's too landslides in a row. >> it's not two lan landslides in a row. >> stephanie: what do y
s, of considers under ronald reagan and george w. bush's tax rates in 2003. it's interesting, i found two universal effects of those tax cuts. first, in every instance we cut the rates, the economy worked faster. it did work, mr. president, we got a lot of growth. but the second may be more interesting, is that guess what happened to the share of taxes paid by the rich. they went up, in fact, if you want to get more money, mr. president, out of rich people, cut their tax rate, don't raise them, because history proves it. >> dave: certainly did in the reagan years and another peace in the wall street journal a couple back, clinton rates, raised top tier 39.6 and as the authors of that piece said produced the one period of shared prosperity not because they raised taxes, but certainly lead to growth, right? >> no question. the 1990's was a prosperous era, but i think that sometimes people get a little of that history wrong what happened in the 1990's, president clinton raised taxes in the first year in office and remember, the first two years in office were a catastrophe and in fa
examples of presidents who solved big problems by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic-led house after a far more resounding second-term victory than president obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)